TO HUNTERS HERITAGE COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FROM MARCH 2, 2009

This letter is being written in response to a communication put out to hunters across Washington State by, or at least signed by, the Executive Committee of the Hunters Heritage Council (HHC). I’m responding to this communication because it contains information and opinion that are not only false but potentially very damaging to Washington’s wildlife management and the management of habitats that support these animals. It has taken the current Fish and Wildlife Commission nearly four years to develop and implement policies, goals and objective that move the Department in a positive direction relative to the management of these resources.

Until January 2008, the Department never had meaningful measurable goals and objectives for managing the state’s game herds since the merger of Departments of Fish and Game. As an example, the current Commission set goals for the Department that focus on getting all 10 elk herds in the state to their respective target population objectives. Currently, six of 10 fall short of their objective. Likewise, there are measures for other wildlife species and fish. These goals and objectives are public information and can be accessed through the Commission secretary in Olympia. The Commission has consistently focused on improving the performance of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, especially in areas where we believed that the Department has not performed well.

During my years on the Commission, I and other Commissioners felt that the Department’s Wildlife Program had serious problems and needed strategic direction. In its role as policy setting body for the Department, the Commission reviews and approves the long term strategy for wildlife—the Wildlife Management Plan. That plan is updated every six years. We were asked to approve a Plan prepared for 2008. The Commission did not approve the first three drafts of this document because it lacked action steps, goals, and other critical details to assure accountability and wildlife herd improvements. The Commission’s Wildlife Committee spent long hours repeatedly making comments to see that the Plan would provide the substantive guidance needed by the Wildlife Biologists to improve wildlife conditions over the next six years. The Six year Wildlife Management Plan now insures that the Department is held accountable for positive trends in wildlife management.

Another area of emphasis by the current Fish and Wildlife Commission has been public education and communication. The Department has made some improvements in this area but there is still a long way to go. There are goals and objectives for these activities that the Commission is monitoring and pressing the interim Director to achieve. The Department’s record in developing working relationships with sports organizations, schools and universities and other stakeholder groups needs to be greatly improved. Again, this has been a continuing emphasis of the Commission on the Department's leadership. Publicly available goals and objectives and policy statements are available for those that would like to examine them and even input to them.

The accusation in the HHC communication that citizens testifying before the Commission are treated poorly and that their input is rarely reflected in decisions is simply not true. When I chaired the Commission, I asked people to cease their testimony only when their allotted time had ended. In rare instances, citizens testifying before the Commission were argumentative and asked to cease their testimony. These occasions occurred very infrequently. Generally, public comments are heard, appreciated and the speakers thanked by the Commission. Further, between Commission meetings, Commissioners spend a lot of time reading e-mails and letters and answering telephone calls from interested constituents. These communications are also weighed into discussions leading up to policy development. The access to decision makers now provided by the Commission process will be essentially eliminated if SSB 5127 passes.

The HHC document indicates that there were “several instances where members of the Commission have, or are, engaged in rule making-related activity that attacks one user group over another.” Frankly, who ever authored this statement needs to be held accountable for it. It's not true!

The inference that Fish and Wildlife Commissioners intimidate staff and manipulate regulations for their personal agendas is a strong charge and cannot be substantiated, to my knowledge. However, there have been times when individual Commissioners have known that the truth was not accurately provided by staff . Biased wildlife staff presentations including errors of omission and /or commission are a serious concern for the Commission. Staff presentations should always be accurate, unbiased and credible to provide solid foundation for policy development. Some Legislators have made it known to the Commission that they see this as an issue which threatens the integrity of the process. At times, Commissioners have expressed their frustration to staff and have discussed this problem with the Director. I don't consider that as intimidation or manipulation. Rather, the examples above high light some of the wildlife staff problems that need to be remedied.

Currently, the Commission has nine member positions, when fully staffed. Given the diversity and complexity of wildlife and fish issues in Washington and the population of the state (6.8mm), the workload is more than full for the members of this volunteer Commission. The incumbents are citizens of the state with diverse interests and experience. They work hard to understand the many diverse issues associated with wildlife and fish management and are committed to doing the best job possible in developing policies and guidance for the Department.

Actions of the current Commission have, in general, been very positive for the hunting community, although not always apparent and high profile. If SB 5127 is passed and the Commission responsibility and authority over the Director reduced, hunters will be extremely disappointed in the results. Since 1995, Referendum 45 has provided an opportunity for “the voice of the people” and it is misleading and irresponsible to insinuate otherwise. While not perfect, I believe that the current Commission system is a far more effective policy and guidance approach for the Department than placement of the agency in the Governor's Cabinet. It is, in fact, vastly more responsive to wildlife and fish issues and to the people of Washington than a Director appointed by and accountable only to the Governor ever could be. Think about it! That is why this People's Referendum passed by a sizable margin (For – 809,083, Against – 517,433) in November, 1995.

If SB 5127 passes and policy and Director reporting are placed with the Governor's office, subsequent policy development for fish and wildlife will be strongly influenced by tribal and commercial fishing interests and as hunters, you should understand those implications. Further, the Governor's staff currently is anti-hunting. Will any of these groups (tribal, commercial fishery, or Governor's staff ) advance the interests of the non-tribal hunting community in Washington?

Lastly, I'd like to discuss why the HHC communication supporting SB5127 was really brought to the hunting community for support. Senator Jacobsen, Chair of the Senate Ocean and Natural Resources Committee, has opposed the current Commission since it was appointed by Governor Gregoire in 2005. From the beginning of my term, the Senator viewed our Commission as a threat to the dominance of the commercial fishery in Washington The Senator has a number of constituents in the Ballard area that are commercial fishermen or otherwise vested in that industry. In 2008, the Commission worked to resolve Salmon fishing issues between recreational and commercial fishers on the Columbia River. The result of this work was a move in toward conservation of wild salmon that did not set well with commercial fishers. This inspired Senator Jacobsen to develop legislation in the form of SB 5127. By reducing the Commissions responsibility/authority through SB 5127, he is securing the interests of the commercial fishing industry. The Bill, as written, would restrict or eliminate public input on wildlife management and recreational fishing issues. Future policy would be directed out of the Governor's Office and influenced primary by input from the Governor's anti hunting staff, tribes and commercial fishing interests.

Unfortunately, whoever drafted this biased and untruthful communication that the HHC Executive Committee has signed and distributed has appealed to the hunting community to act against the very things that it wants to see from the Department and the Commission. I ask you to strongly consider distributing this message to set the record straight. The person/persons that provided input to the content of the HHC letter had an alternative purpose in mind and that was to protect the Senator’s special interest clients and advance the tribe’s agenda by stripping the Commission's authority. It was not intended to improve the agenda of the hunting community or wildlife. If SB 5127 passes the Director will be selected by the Governor and be directed by a governor's staff that is generally less informed about wildlife and fish issues) as well as pressured by strong tribal influence and the commercial fishery interests in Washington. Contact your senator and representatives today as well as Governor Gregoire. NO ON SB 5127!

I'd be happy to discuss any part of this or other issues relating to the Department or the Commission of Fish and Wildlife.
Respectfully,
Jerry Gutzwiler
Immediate past Chair, DFW Commission
Prior Commissioner

e-mail: jrgutzwiler@genext.net

That was sent to whom, Phoenix 77?

Give em HELL Jerry!

I received a letter response from Senator Tim Sheldon yesterday on his yes vote. He indicated that the commission citizens are not trained in fisheries management and are basically, not qualified.

It would appear this "LIE" is being perpetuated by Jacobsen and nothing could be further from the truth. Just take a look at the bio's of these commissioners! You will NEVER find a single person with the knowledge and experience of our collective WDFW Commission. It would be impossible!

Sheldon will be hearing from me again. I expect my representitives to educate themselves on the issues and not be this misinformed. I have sent my two reps a long email detailing the commission's qualifications with a copy to the commission.

Thanks for keeping us up to date on this stuff. We have numerous CCA members that want to use this and other information when they talk to their Senators,Legislators and the Governor.

Keep up the Great work on shedding the light on the sleazy shenanigans some of these people try to pull.

Fishy

Let's not forget.... it was Ed Owens who has been lobbying to raise our license fees. He wants us sporties to fund commercial fisheries.

While I disagree with doing away with the WDFW and hate the lies that are being spread about the commission there is one point where Mr. Gutzwiler should watch what he says and make sure that he thinks carefully before making changes. That is the fact that they listen to public testimony, it doesn't make any difference what people say or testify to I can think of an instance where it was between 5 to 1 testimony in favor of an issue both written and in person (with good amount of responses) and they just threw it out. I can also think of an instance where I was told by the commission that the commission wasn't interested in hearing my opinion because they didn't agree with it extremely rude. They make up their minds before an testimony happens and it has jaded me on the whole process which is why I don't even waste my time anymore. Maybe I will come back around some day. So saying "citizens testifying before the Commission are treated poorly and that their input is rarely reflected in decisions is simply not true" is blatenly false. Just because I support having the commission and not having the issue settled by politicians doesn't mean I think the commission is perfect and shouldn't be called out on the mat when lies are told about how they opporate.

JJ

And your problem was?, E.g.,

My problem was the rebutal letter wasn't completely true. IMO.

There are certain subjects, like wild fish management, that the commission doesn't want testimony on and have been hostile to people that testify politely on issues.

JJ

Good stuff, I like the approach, wide distribution could pay off... aren't there a bunch of hunters who frequent this site that might provide additional impact? Maybe this should go on the On the hunt page too.

JJ, I think the current Commission lineup is way better at it than was the Commission lineups in 2000 and 2004.



Slab, ex-Commissioner Jerry Gutzweiler sent it to the members of the Hunters Heritage Council, whose lobbyist Ed Owens claims their support when pushing this bill...while not really being forthcoming about two things: one, he's not very honest about how the Commission process has been working, and he's also a representative of the commercial fishing industry.

Fish on...

Todd

Well....I'll sure let everyone know, if the Commission seems to listen, cause I'll be there tomorrow to "chat relative to my concerns in Grays Harbor".

Quiet, shy, I am not.....if toes need to be stepped on.....I have a big foot.

Time tells all.....hopefully, change is comming???????

DrifterWa, let us know what happens at that meeting. We up here in the hinterlands like to know what happens down there in the seat of power.

Fishy

JJ feel free to email Gutzwiler. IM sure he has big shoulders. Who knows, if he agrees with you, he might print a retraction. Btw, send me your resume, and statement that you will listen to every bumpkin that knows less than you. Its not personal, I just wonder why this issue is such a big deal. With all the degrees, should the commission get bogged down covering the same issue, after they have established the policy or made the decision? If you want someone PC who will waste everyones time, covering the same issue and second guessing their own decisions, call Paula Abdule.

Get um LB!

Fishy

The hunters heritage council letter made its way to my reps as well, I know one of my guys a little bit and he mentioned it was the most persuasive "in support" pressure he's gotten...

So it occurs to me -- why not mount an effort to change the mind of the HHC? They're MUCH more aligned with us than commercial fishermen, and getting them to flip on the issue--could have a dramatic impact on the house voting...

Anyone know the leadership at HHC?

LB,

You are right only people that have a wildlife biology degree should testify or give input the commission. No need for regular sportman to give their testimony. I will remember that next time there is a call to send input in. In fact unless you are a politician or have a poli sci degree we shouldn't probably give feed back on any bills. Thank you for opening my eyes.

JJ

"political science" degree........there's an oxi-moron for you

If you take a look at the Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation page, they say that the HHC is the political leg of their organization. I used to be a member of Washington Waterfowl Assoc., and I can now say I am sure glad I am not any longer. Here is a link to the Board of Directors of the WWC, who presumably should be able to influence what the HHC does. I fired off an email asking two questions. Why are you supporting such a piece of trash bill? And two, what the F is Ed Owens doing as your lobbyist. It's like asking a rapist to take care of your Grandma.
http://www.w4wc.org/

It is not documented but there is reason to believe that HHC is just a front organization made up of OWENS and a flunky. The title sure seems impressive but you should read the carefully worded letter that OWENS sent to the legislature when he informed them that he represented HHC and its 57K members.
I hope more folks question folks they know to be members of these "represented" organizations, and at least inform them they are being represented by Lobbyist OWENS.